Chimel v. California Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Показать описание

Chimel v. California | 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

Suppose police officers arrive at a suspect’s house with an arrest warrant, but without a search warrant for the house. After they arrest the suspect, they proceed to search his home. In the 1969 case of Chimel versus California, the United States Supreme Court set forth the parameters for conducting a search in these circumstances.

Police officers in Santa Ana, California, developed probable cause to believe that Ted Chimel committed two burglaries, during which he stole rare coins and other valuable items. The officers obtained an arrest warrant regarding one of the burglaries and went to Chimel’s two-story home. Chimel’s wife allowed the officers to come inside and wait for Chimel to return from work. When Chimel entered the house through the front door, the officers arrested him.

Over Chimel’s objection and without a search warrant, the officers then searched his entire home, including his upstairs bedroom, for nearly an hour. Inside dresser drawers in the bedroom, the officers found old coins, medals, and tokens, some of which were later identified as stolen in one of the burglaries. A state prosecutor charged Chimel with burglary.

At trial, Chimel moved to suppress the evidence taken from his bedroom, claiming it was the product of an unconstitutional search. The court denied the motion, and Chimel was convicted of burglary. Chimel appealed first to the California Court of Appeal and then to the California Supreme Court. Both courts affirmed Chimel’s conviction after concluding that the warrantless search of his bedroom was a reasonable search, since it happened in connection with Chimel’s arrest.

Chimel successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court.

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries